Republican secretary of state candidates spar over Arizona's voter-registration rules

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan's decision to settle a lawsuit over the state's voter-registration rules has triggered a torrent of criticism from Steve Gaynor, her opponent in the Aug. 28 Republican primary.(Photo: Patrick Breen/The Republic)

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan's decision to settle a lawsuit over the state's voter-registration rules has triggered a torrent of criticism from Steve Gaynor, her opponent in the Aug. 28 Republican primary.

Gaynor, a wealthy businessman, blasted the decision in robocalls to thousands of GOP voters at the end of June, saying Reagan is "allowing illegal immigrants to vote in federal elections in Arizona."

His attack comes after Reagan settled a lawsuit filed by non-profit groups who say the state's two-track voter registration system — with different rules for voting in state and federal races — unconstitutionally blocks tens of thousands of people from voting.

Last month,Reagan agreed to a settlement that will require the state to allow more people to vote in federal elections without providing proof of citizenship.

She said the agreement came about because the state likely would have lost the lawsuit if it continued not to register voters for federal elections simply because they used the state's form.

Federal law requires the state to register voters for federal elections if they attest they are citizens, even if they don't provide documentation to show they are citizens. But Arizona requires documented proof of citizenship to vote in state elections.

"It’s already federal law, whether we like it or not … that if we’re given a form without proof of citizenship, that voter is a federal voter," Reagan said. "Arizona can’t say, 'Oh, no, no, no. We don’t want to accept that form.' We have to accept it."

That aspect of the settlement is a clear victory for progressive groups. But Reagan said the agreement is a win-win for all voters. She said it allows elections officials to take more steps to check if a person, who doesn't provide proof of citizenship, is eligible to vote.

Lawsuit triggered over rejected voter registrations

NEWSLETTERS

Get the AZ Memo newsletter delivered to your inbox

We're sorry, but something went wrong

Get the pulse of Arizona -- Local news, in-depth state coverage and what it all means for you

Arizona began treating state and federal voter registration differently after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that it cannot impose its more stringent registration requirements on federal elections.

“It’s already federal law, whether we like it or not … that if we’re given a form without proof of citizenship, that voter is a federal voter. Arizona can’t say, 'Oh, no, no, no. We don’t want to accept that form.' We have to accept it.”

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan

The crux of the issue is the disparate levels of documentation required to vote under federal and state law.

Under federal law, voters need only to sign a form swearing, under penalty of perjury, that they are a citizen. Arizona law, however, requires voters to provide documents proving their citizenship, such as a driver's license or birth certificate.

The disparity led Arizona to create a two-track voting system in which voters who only use the federal form only get a federal ballot.

People who register using Arizona's form can get the full ballot, from local city elections up to picking the president.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in U.S District Court late last year by the League of United Latin American Citizens Arizona and Arizona Students’ Association, alleged Reagan's office has implemented the state's rule unconstitutionally.

Reagan has instructed county election officials to reject any state voter-registration forms that don't include documented proof of citizenship,the lawsuit alleges. However, it states, thousands of those voters are still eligible to vote in federal elections but aren't being registered for either.

About 26,000 voters in Maricopa County alone have been disenfranchised, according to the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan group that supported the plaintiffs. The total number could be far higher.

Arizona voters approved the state's strict proof-of-citizenship requirement more than a decade ago, through a 2004 ballot initiative.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is expected to resign to run for Congress, which will trigger a special election to fill the vacancy - and will likely lead to a domino effect of vacancies as council members resign to run for mayor. Mark Henle/The Republic

Interested in this topic? You may also want to view these photo galleries:

Gaynor pans Reagan's settlement

On June 4, groups behind the lawsuit and Reagan's office announced the settlement. While Reagan rejected the argument that Arizona's practice is unconstitutional,at least on paper, she agreed to do things differently.

Reagan's office specifically agreed to register all voters for federal elections regardless of whether they use the state or federal form.

“To sum it up, what Reagan did made it possible for non-citizens to vote. The law says if they don’t have documentary proof of citizenship the application should be denied … The law should have been defended.”

Steve Gaynor, businessman and candidate for Arizona secretary of state

In addition, county elections can also now verify all voter registrations that don't provide documented proof of citizenship using the statewide MVD database. Those that have proof will be made "full-ballot voters" and allowed to vote in all elections.

County recorders can now decide if they want to register voters whose forms have been in limbo, provided they are eligible to vote in federal elections and submitted forms after Jan, 1, 2017, according to the agreement.

That aspect of the settlement was mandatory for Maricopa County — a move Recorder Adrian Fontes cheered.

Fontes said his staff already has registered numerous voters whose forms were cast aside. He said the settlement is confirmation that constitutional protections "had been violated in the past" under the state's prior practice

Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which represented the plaintiffs, said the settlement will help increase voter turnout.

“Ensuring equal access to the voting box for eligible voters is critical in maintaining an open and fair democratic process and this settlement helps ensure that more voters will have their voices heard this election cycle," Clarke said in a prepared statement.

But Gaynor has focused his criticism on the aspect of the settlement that requires the state to register voters for federal elections even if they use the state form. He said Reagan should not have settled and fought the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

“To sum it up, what Reagan did made it possible for non-citizens to vote," Gaynor said. “The law says if they don’t have documentary proof of citizenship the application should be denied … The law should have been defended."

The spat represents a clear ideological divide in the Republican primary for secretary of state. Gaynor has aimed to court the party's more conservative right wing by casting Reagan as a centrist.

She fired back, calling Gaynor's attack "disingenuous." Reagan said federal law ties the state's hands by requiring it to register voters for federal elections even if they don't have documentation of citizenship.

"This is what happens when somebody tries to buy an election," she said. "They haven’t been involved in the issues and they don’t understand this stuff."